While the 50,000 steelworkers demonstrated in Frankfurt Thyssen, Krupp refrained from launching its takeover bid, in conflict with his rival. On the other hand, the two German companies announced the creation of a joint company of steel, a decision that would result in thousands of layoffs. And on the other hand, also the closure of the Vilvoorde (Belgium) by Renault helps to illustrate the contempt in which the workers are required. Two examples, among many others, the role played by the top 200 multinational companies on a global scale, driven by special interests that diverge more and more general interest. Since the beginning of the 80s, these "first hundred" have known, through mergers and the purchase of undertakings, uninterrupted expansion, through which exert a totalitarian rule, so to speak, not only on the economy but also on information and on the minds (read, shown here, the article by Ignacio Ramonet).
Frederic F. Clermont *
One would search in vain in campaign speeches or in those of the followers of the neoclassical theory, the slightest allusion to the fact that mergers are now the main engine of capital accumulation. Sure, it was a constant in the history of capitalism, if not a condition of its survival as a mode of class domination; but his pace has never been so quick.
Since the mid-70s the accumulation of capital is achieved mainly through annexations of companies, redemptions and mergers, Combined with the colossal expansion of financial flows, and not speculative, it acts directly on investment decisions, but none of this is clearly explained to the workers, although their fate is at stake. He insists instead on the dynamic role of the "market", which should guide the decisions of large corporations. But seven years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, with the massive colonization of Eastern Europe, the slowdown in growth, the deepening of the antagonisms within the countries and within the same imperialist world, where are the glorious promises of "free market? "(1) glimpsed for a moment at the end of the 80s, the much-touted "economic recovery" has not kept its promises. Manufacturing industries in the world (except for the Chinese) work only 70-75% of their capacity. The world debt (which includes one of the companies, states and families) exceeded 33.1 trillion dollars, equivalent to 130% of gross domestic product (GDP) worldwide, and is progressing at a rate of 6-8% per year worth to say more than four times the world GDP growth. These differences in rates are unsustainable and have disastrous consequences (2). Everywhere, in all sectors, real wages fell under the blows restructurings, plant closings and relocations. The sun capitalist economies "advanced", the number of unemployed exceeds 41 million, and it is not over ...
But the crisis, with its hundreds of millions of victims, does not affect the transnational corporations. Singing the praises of the achievements of the Fortune 500 global companies surveyed, the authors of this list note with satisfaction that "they have swept the border to seize new markets and swallow local competitors. More countries are, the greater the profits. The earnings of the 500 largest companies rose by 15%, while increasing their income by 11% (3) "in the early 90s, some 37,000 transnational corporations, with their 170,000 subsidiaries, huddled in their tentacles the international economy. But the real power is concentrated in the inner circle of the "first hundred", which from the beginning of the 80's have experienced continuous expansion (4) through mergers and the purchase of undertakings.
The share of transnational capital in the world GDP is in fact increased from 17% in the mid-70s to 24% in 1982 to over 30% in 1995. The "first hundred" (5) are conglomerates whose activities cover, without distinction, the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors: agricultural businesses, manufacturing firms, financial services, trade, etc..
Geographically are distributed among 10 countries: Japan (62) United States (53) Germany (23) France (19), United Kingdom (11), Switzerland (8), South Korea (6) Italy (5) and the Netherlands (4 ). With the exception of some Anglo-Dutch joint venture (Shell and Unilever group), remain on the run only 8 countries, which represent 96.5% of the "first hundred" and 96% of their turnover. But in reality, the concentration is even greater than they do think about these statistics. In fact, the companies belonging to the categories of "first hundred" are not all independent companies, as evidenced by the well-known examples of the Mitsubishi, Sumitomo and Mitsui, to name just a few. There are five companies Mitsubishi between the "first hundred" whose combined turnover exceeds $ 320 billion. These entities within the empire Mitsubishi, despite having a high degree of autonomy, are strategically intertwined with each other in matters of administration, pricing, marketing and production. The same is true with regard to their common economic networks, political and espionage. Their political agent is the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) whose operating expenses are covered to the extent of 37% by the empire Mitsubishi. Among the "first hundred" power inequalities have continued to widen during the expansion process they have known in the past two decades, particularly due to the war going on between them to win ever larger shares of the world market. In fact, between 1982 and 1995, the number of American companies has dropped from 80 to 53, while that of Japanese companies has increased during the same period, from 35 to 62.
A first-time imperial power, the United Kingdom has seen the number of its companies collapse from 18 to 11. On the other hand showed a dwarf geographic and demographic, Switzerland. But the most surprising was the rapid rise of South Korean companies, whose number increased from 1 to 6 in a relatively short period of time. At the top of the figure Daewoo, one of the most aggressive expansionism of transnational groups, spearhead of imperialism in Korea. With a turnover of over 52 billion U.S. dollars, exceeded giants such as Nichimen, the Kanematsu, the Univeler or Nestlé.
The global expansion of Daewoo is quite symptomatic of the power of the chaebol, the conglomerates in Korea. The assets of 30/1 chaebol have increased from 223 billion dollars in 1992 to 367 billion in 1996, representing more than four fifths of Korean GDP (6). In addition, companies that occupy the first four places Daewoo, Sandgong, Samsung and Hyundai to divide half of these assets ($ 185 billion). In January, the workers' revolt blew shattered the myth of the "Korean miracle," but it is not said that the result is a slowdown in the expansion of these giants, within the country and outside.
All this would not have been possible without the billions of dollars provided by the United States during the Korean growth in the years between 1947 and 1955; after which they were replaced by tens of billions of dollars of public subsidies. In South Korea, like Japan, there is no well-defined dividing line between the chaebol and the state (7). Public subsidies should then be added to the ruthless repression of the working class and liquidation rights of the person. All politicians, without exception, as well as members of the military hierarchy, are shareholders in the foreground, who sit on the boards of large companies. In the brotherhood of the chaebol, everyone knows each other and marriages are combined inside.
Who does not remember the words spoken by the great German industrialist Walter Rathenau in 1909: "Three hundred men, who all know one another, direct the destinies of Europe to co-opt them and their successors (8)?" Helmut Maucher, general manager of Nestle as well as "manager" of the Forum in Davos, presides over the European Round Table of Industrialists, the Club of elites belonging to 47 companies on the list of "firsts two hundred." Implacable opponent of the European Social Charter, is an active militant of labor flexibility, as all the members of his caste. From 1986 to 1996, mergers have multiplied at a rate of 15% per year, and there is no sign of slowing down in the near future. If, then things will not change between now and 2000, the cumulative cost of such transactions will reach approximately 10 trillion dollars (by way of comparison, the GDP of the United States was in 1996, and levels of current prices, of 7,600 billion dollars). Evidently, in a period marked by deflation and slowing growth, underemployment and indebtedness, transnational corporations have no other means to promote their expansion, to absorb their competitors to conquer new markets as well.
The mergers also allow the realization of economies of scale on the world market. They make use of many transnational companies such as Boeing and the three major auto companies of the United States or in Japan and South Korea, the giants of the automobile, electronics and shipbuilding. Five major transnational companies have got their hands on more than half of the world market in key sectors of aerospace, electrical supplies, electronic parts and software; the other two have done so in the quick-service restaurant, and five in the fields of beverages, tobacco and alcoholic beverages.
The rise of transnational is encouraged not only by the governments of their respective countries, but also by the enormous subsidies and tax privileges offered by host countries such as the United Kingdom and Ireland, as well as by the governments of Eastern Europe, who are selling off the national patrimony shots of privatization and tax incentives of any kind.
Mergers and alliances of companies (such as the alliance between Shell and BP) contribute to the building of a complex economic totalitarianism. "Liberalization", "privatization," "deregulation," "system of international free trade," are all rational arguments that would justify this development. In this movement, concentration, major investment banks, mutual funds and pension funds play a major role (see article on page 18). Wall Street, in turn, exerts pressure to inflate the earnings of "portfolio value"; and investment banks are in all this their own gain.
The case of Goldman Sachs, one of the leading investment banks in the first place in the world for the consolidation of transnational corporations, is exemplary in this regard. Its profits have doubled within a year, rising from 931 million dollars in 1995 to 1.9 billion in 1996.
Applying his recipes, this bank has reduced its workforce by 20% in recent years, not to be handicapped by a "labor costs too high." That does not prevent her to pay more than $ 200,000 in annual dividends to each of its 175 members, in addition to the profits on their capital.
Morgan Stanley (9), the President has received more than $ 14 million in dividends in 1996, representing a 30% increase over the previous year. But these banks, not content to encourage mergers, engage directly on the same street. The merger between Morgan Stanley and Dean Witter has given rise to one of the largest companies in the world of investments and securities, whose market value is more than $ 24 billion (10). And this event has set off a chain reaction among other investment banks and brokerage firms.
How long can this game? "Frankly, no one knows, says a commissioner to the accounts of the City. Banks commit very substantial sums. Crazily We are pushing to mergers, which are our food." This highly qualified expert acknowledges that in no uncertain terms that this orgy of annexations of business is financed through debt. Neither more nor less than the world economy. Novartis, founded in 1996, occupies the second place among the giants of the pharmaceutical industry, this company is the product of a merger between Sandoz and Ciba-Geigy: it was the largest such operation in the history of transnational, which commissions and legal fees earned approximately $ 95 million, split between Morgan Stanley and the Union de Banque Suisse (UBS). From one day to the next, the capital of Novartis jumped from $ 63 billion to 82 billion. When a windfall like that falls into the coffers of a small group of financiers, as talk of a crisis of capitalism? However, the medal has two sides: the birth of the Novartis has resulted in massive liquidation of jobs, promptly carried out in the name of the usual "cost savings" and "restructuring." Suddenly, the shares of both companies have experienced an unprecedented rise.
10% of the workforce will be eliminated at an early stage. And the consequences in terms of aggravation of poverty does not prevent the sphere of finance to make the operation as a victory of market rationality.
Similarly rejoices, on Wall Street and on all financial markets, the absorption by the Boeing McDonnell Douglas (14 billion dollars). But this time there was a difference in the strategy of annexation, given that this purchase is not only the result of a decision of the board of directors of Boeing, but was strongly encouraged by the Pentagon and the Department of Commerce, concerned about facilitate the penetration of the U.S. aerospace industry on international markets. The resulting liquidations of jobs have been massive. Moreover, since 1992 the number of establishments working for the defense has dropped from 32 to 9, with the loss of more than 1 million jobs (11).
In the latter instance, the strategic considerations can not be dissociated from the pursuit of profit, given that the holders of Boeing and the departments of defense and commerce of the United States were aimed at something more than an extension of the shares in open market to U.S. exports . The time had come for them to marginalize, if not to liquidate the Airbus. Thanks to the contribution of McDonnell Douglas, Boeing now holds 64% of the market. The company also will benefit from the orders of the defense that previously went to McDonnell Douglas. And finally, its access to funding from the federal public sector is strengthened. For 1997, Boeing has provided revenue to $ 51 billion, of which 40% comes from the orders of the defense. Where are the market criteria in all this? By purchasing McDonnell (and other purchases inevitably follow on this path) Boeing ensures enormous subsidies. This company sells its goods and services far below market costs. Its research and development are subsidized by the Pentagon since the end of the war by getting tens of billions of dollars as well as through the purchase of tickets.
For the moment, the crushing weight of transnational corporations in the world economy does not have an equivalent in the political counterweight. What will happen in the next century? These companies will be able to maintain their totalitarian structures of domination and exploitation? Infinite growth can not exist in a finite world: at least this law applies to everyone, and also applies to megaimprese. No one can say where it will stop the movement of capitalist concentration, nor if and when he finds one of its limits. But as of now, the social and political failures determined by mergers and redemptions in the series are opening numerous cracks in the building ...
notes:
* Economist
see more on
http://web.peacelink.it/boycott/
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento